NARAYAN RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking the relief to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to settle the pension payable to the petitioner from the date of his retirement on the ground, inter alia, that the petitioner being an Ex-serviceman, was appointed as Physical Teacher on 9. 8. 58 by the respondents and he retired on 25. 5. 88 on the basis of the order dated 24. 5. 88 Annx. P/l to the writ petition issued by respondent No. 4. It is not disputed that the age of retirement of the petitioner being Ex-serviceman was 55 years but due to fault of the department he was not retired at the due date after completion of 55 years of age but was allowed to continue to work on the post for a period of one year and one month more. It is alleged by the petitioner; that the Section Officer of Removal of Public Grievance Department of Government of Rajasthan wrote to respondents No. 3 and 4 to settle the pension and he also recommended for making payment of arrears of the pension of the petitioner. It is undisputed that the petitioner is getting provisional pension at the rate of Rs. 544/- per month.

(2.) AFTER service of notices, respondents No. l to 4 have filed joint return stating therein that the petitioner was to retire at the age of 55 years but he did not point out to the authorities concerned that he has completed 55 years of age, therefore, he should be deemed to have been retired on attaining the age of superannuation after completing 55 years. According to the allegations made by the respondents in their return, he kept silence and did not bring to the notice of the authorities, which has created complications in final settlement of the pension after his retirement. According to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4, the petitioner continued to work on the post for a period of one year and one month more and when the aforesaid fact came to their knowledge, order of his retirement was passed on 24. 5. 88. According to the respondents, the authorities are not to be blamed for delay in settlement of the pension.

(3.) MR. R. L. Jangid, learned counsel for respondents No. l to 4 had brought to my notice that the payment of pension has been finally settled and regularised by the department and relevant papers have been sent to the Sub Treasury Officer, Bilara. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant writ petition has become infructuous.